Report to Congressional Requesters

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO 

May 2003 TITLE I

Characteristics of 

Tests Will Influence 

Expenses; Information 

Sharing May Help 

States Realize 

Efficiencies 

GAO-03-389 
The majority of states administer statewide tests and customize questions to 

measure student learning against their state standards. These states differ 

along other characteristics, however, including the types of questions on 

their tests and how they are scored, the extent to which actual test questions 

are released to the public following the tests, and the number of new tests 

they need to develop to comply with the NCLBA. 

GAO provides three estimates of total expenditures between fiscal year 

2002 and 2008, based on different assumptions about the types of test 

questions states may choose to implement and how they are scored. The 

method by which tests are scored largely explains the differences in GAO’s 

estimates. 

If all states use tests with multiple-choice questions, which are machine 

scored, GAO estimates that the total state expenditures will be about 

$1.9 billion. If all states use tests with a mixture of multiple-choice questions 

and a limited number of open-ended questions that require students to write 

their response, such as an essay, which are hand scored, GAO estimates 

spending to be about $5.3 billion. GAO estimates that spending will be at 

about $3.9 billion, if states keep the mix of question types states reported to 

GAO. In general, hand scoring is more expensive and time and labor 

intensive than machine scoring. Benchmark funding for assessments as 

specified in NCLBA will cover a larger percentage of estimated expenditures 

for tests comprised of multiple-choice questions and a smaller percentage of 

estimated expenditures for tests comprised of a mixture of multiple-choice 

and open-ended questions. Several states are exploring ways to reduce 

assessment expenses, but information on their experiences is not broadly 

shared among states. 

Dollars in billions

0

2

4

6

Multiple-choice

Current question

type

Multiple-choice

Estimates

Benchmark

appropriations

and open-ended

Source: GAO analysis.

2.7

1.9

3.9

5.3

The No Child Left Behind Act of 

2001 (NCLBA) reauthorized the 

$10 billion Title I program, which 

seeks to improve the educational 

achievement of 12.5 million 

students at risk. In passing the 

legislation, Congress increased the 

frequency with which states are to 

measure student achievement in 

mathematics and reading and 

added science as another subject. 

Congress also authorized funding 

to support state efforts to develop 

and implement tests for this 

purpose. 

Congress mandated that GAO study 

the costs of implementing the 

required tests. This report 

describes characteristics of states’ 

Title I tests, provides estimates of 

what states may spend to 

implement the required tests, and 

identifies factors that explain 

variation in expenses. 

Given that significant expenses 

may be associated with testing, 

GAO is recommending that 

Education facilitate the sharing of 

information on states’ experiences 

in attempting to reduce expenses. 

Education agreed with GAO’s 

recommendation but raised 

concerns about GAO’s 

methodology for estimating 

expenditures. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-389.

To view the full report, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Marnie S. 

Shaul at (202) 512-7215 or shaulm@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-03-389, a report to 

Congressional Requesters 

May 2003

TITLE I

Characteristics of Tests Will Influence 

Expenses; Information Sharing May Help 

States Realize Efficiencies 
Page i GAO-03-389 Title I 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 4

States Generally Report Administering Statewide Assessments 

Developed to Measure Their State Standards, but Differ Along 

Other Characteristics 7

Estimates of Spending Driven Largely by Scoring Expenditures 14

Conclusions 22

Recommendation 22

Agency Comments 22

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 24 

Appendix II Accountability and Assessment Requirements under 

the 1994 and 2001 Reauthorizations of Title I 31 

Appendix III Number of Tests States Reported They Need to 

Develop or Augment to Comply with NCLBA (as of 

March 2003) 33 

Appendix IV Estimates of Assessment Expenditures NCLBA 

Required, but Not in Place at the Time of Our 

Survey, FY 2002-08 35 

Appendix V State Development and Nondevelopment Estimates 36 

Appendix VI Fiscal Years 2002-08 Estimated Expenditures for 

Each Question Type 38 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-03-389 Title I 

Appendix VII Comments from the Department of Education 39 

Appendix VIII GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 42 

GAO Contacts 42

Staff Acknowledgments 42

Tables 

Table 1: Number of Assessments and Subject Areas Required by 

the 1994 and 2001 ESEA Reauthorizations 5

Table 2: Assessment Minimum Amounts under NCLBA 6

Table 3: The Number of Tests States Reported Needing to Develop 

or Augment Varies 13

Table 4: Estimated Expenditures by States for Title I Assessments, 

Fiscal Years 2002-08 15

Table 5: Estimated Total Expenditures for Test Development Are 

Lower Than for Test Administration, Scoring, and 

Reporting 17

Table 6: Total Estimated Expenditures by States for Title I 

Assessments, Fiscal Years 2002-08 19

Table 7: States Selected for Study 25

Table 8: Examples of Assessment Expenditures 26

Table 9: Average Annual Expenditures for the 7 States (adjusted to 

2003 dollars) 27

Table 10: Estimated Expenditures to Implement Title I 

Assessments in a Given Year 30

Table 11: Estimates of Expenditures for the Assessments Required 

by NCLBA That Were Not in Place at the Time of Our 

Survey, Fiscal Years 2002-08 35

Table 12: Estimates by State, Development, and Nondevelopment 

Expenditures 36

Table 13: Estimated Expenditures for Each Question Type, Fiscal 

Years 2002-08 38

Figures 

Figure 1: The Majority of States Report They Currently Use 

Statewide Tests and Plan to Continue to Do So 8
Page iii GAO-03-389 Title I 

Figure 2: The Majority of States Reported That They Currently Use 

and Plan to Develop New Tests That Are Customized to 

Measure Their State’s Standards 9

Figure 3: The Majority of States Reported They Use a Combination 

of Multiple-choice and Open-ended Questions on Their 

Tests, but Many States Are Uncertain about Question 

Type on Future Tests 11

Figure 4: States Split in Decision to Release Test Questions to the 

Public Following Tests 12

Figure 5: Estimated Scoring Expenditures Per Assessment Taken 

for Selected States, Fiscal Year 2002 16

Figure 6: Various Factors Are Likely to Affect What States Spend 

on Title I Assessments 18

Figure 7: Total Expenditures Likely to Be Lower in First Few Years 

and Benchmark Funding in NCLBA Estimated to Cover 

Most of Expenditures in First Few Years 21

Abbreviations 

ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

LEA local educational agency 

NASBE National Association of State Boards of Education 

NCLBA No Child Left Behind Act 

This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. It may contain copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. 

Permission from the copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce 

copyrighted materials separately from GAO’s product. 
Page 1 GAO-03-389 Title I 

May 8, 2003 

The Honorable Judd Gregg 

Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, 

 Labor, and Pensions 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy 

Ranking Minority Member, Committee on 

 Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

United States Senate 

The Honorable John A. Boehner 

Chairman, Committee on Education 

 and the Workforce 

House of Represenatives 

The Honorable George Miller 

Ranking Minority Member, Committee on 

 Education and the Workforce 

House of Representatives 

Title I, the largest source of federal funding for primary and secondary 

education, provided states $10.3 billion in fiscal year 2002 to improve the 

educational achievement of 12.5 million students at risk. In passing the No 

Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA), Congress increased funding for 

Title I and placed additional requirements on states and schools for 

improving student performance. To provide an additional basis for making 

judgments about student progress, NCLBA increased the frequency with 

which states are to assess students in mathematics and reading and added 

science as another subject. Under NCLBA, states can choose to administer 

statewide, local, or a combination of state and local assessments, but these 

assessments must measure states’ content standards for learning. If a state 

fails to fulfill NCLBA requirements, the Department of Education 

(Education) can withhold federal funds designated for state 

administration until the requirements have been fulfilled. To support states 

in developing and implementing their assessments, Congress authorized 

specific funding to be allocated to the states between fiscal year 2002 and 

2007. 

United States General Accounting Office 

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-03-389 Title I 

NCLBA requires that states test all students annually in grades 3 through 

8 in mathematics and reading or language arts and at least once in one of 

the high school grades by the 2005-06 school year. It also requires that 

states test students in science at least once in elementary, middle, and high 

school by 2007-08. Some states have already developed assessments in 

many of the required subjects and grades. 

In the conference report accompanying passage of the NCLBA, Congress 

mandated that we do a study of the anticipated aggregate cost to states, 

between fiscal year 2002 and 2008, for developing and administering the 

mathematics, reading or language arts, and science assessments required 

under section 1111(b) of the act. As agreed with your offices, this report 

(1) describes characteristics of states’ Title I assessments and (2) provides 

estimates of what states may spend to implement the required 

assessments between fiscal year 2002 and 2008 and identifies factors that 

explain variation in expenses.1

To determine the characteristics of states’ Title I assessments, we 

collected information through a survey sent to the 50 states, the District of 

Columbia, and Puerto Rico; all 52 responded to our survey. We also 

reviewed published studies detailing the characteristics of states’ 

assessments. To estimate projected expenditures all states are expected to 

incur, we reviewed 7 states’ expenditures—all of which had implemented 

the 6 assessments required by the 1994 Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization and were testing students in many 

of the additional subjects and grades required by NCLBA. The 7 states 

were Colorado, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Texas, 

and Virginia. To estimate projected expenditure ranges for all states, we 

used expenditures from these 7 states coupled with key information 

gathered through a survey completed by each state’s assessment director. 

We estimated projected state expenditures for test development, 

administration, scoring, and reporting results for both assessments that 

states need and assessments that states currently have in place. Our 

methodology for estimating expenditures was reviewed by several internal 

and external experts and their suggestions have been incorporated as 

appropriate. Education officials were also briefed on our methodology and 

raised no substantial concerns. As agreed with your offices, we did not 

 1

NCLBA authorizes funding through fiscal year 2007 for assessments. However, consistent 

with the mandate for this study, we examined expenditures between fiscal years 

2002 through 2008, enabling us to more fully capture expenditures associated with the 

science assessments, which are required to be administered in school year 2007-08. 
Page 3 GAO-03-389 Title I 

determine expenditures for alternate assessments for students with 

disabilities nor expenditures for English language proficiency testing. In 

addition, we did not determine the expenditures local school districts may 

incur with respect to these assessments. To determine what factors 

account for variation in projected expenditures, we reviewed the 7 states’ 

expenditures, noting the test characteristics that were associated with 

specific types and levels of expenditure. We supplemented our 

examination of state expenditures with interviews of test publishers and 

contractors and state assessment officials in these states regarding the 

factors that account for price and expenditure variation. The expenditure 

data that we received were not audited. Actual expenditures may vary 

from projected amounts, particularly when events or circumstances are 

different from those assumed. All estimates are reported in nominal 

dollars unless otherwise noted. 

We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards between April 2002 and March 2003. 

(See app. I for more details about our scope and methodology.) 

The majority of states share two characteristics—they administer 

statewide assessments rather than individual local assessments and use 

customized questions to measure the content taught in the state schools 

rather than questions from commercially available tests. However, states 

differ in many other respects. For example, some states use assessments 

that include multiple-choice questions and other states include a mixture 

of multiple-choice questions and a limited number of questions that 

require students to write their response, such as an essay. Many states that 

use questions that require students to write their response believe that 

such questions enable them to more effectively measure certain skills, 

such as writing. However, others believe that multiple-choice questions 

also allow them to assess such skills. In addition, some states make actual 

test questions available to the public after testing but differ with respect to 

the percentage of test questions they publicly release and consequently, 

the number of questions they will need to replace. States also vary in the 

number of new tests they reported needing to develop to comply with the 

NCLBA, which ranged from 0 to 17. 

We provide three estimates—$1.9, $3.9, and $5.3 billion—of total spending 

by states between fiscal year 2002 and 2008, with the method by which 

assessments are scored largely explaining the differences in our estimates. 

These estimates are based on expenditures associated with new 

assessments as well as existing assessments. The $1.9 billion estimate is 

Results in Brief 
Page 4 GAO-03-389 Title I 

based on the assumption that all states will use multiple-choice questions, 

which are machine scored. The $3.9 billion estimate is based on the 

assumption that all states keep the mix of question types—whether 

multiple-choice or a combination of multiple-choice and open-ended—

states reported to us. The $5.3 billion estimate is based on the assumption 

that all states will use a combination of multiple-choice questions and 

questions that require students to write their response, such as an essay, 

which are hand scored. Several states are exploring ways to reduce 

assessment expenses. This information could be beneficial to others, 

however, it is currently not being broadly shared. Given that significant 

expenses may be associated with testing, we are recommending that 

Education facilitate the sharing of information on states’ experiences as 

they attempt to reduce expenses. Education agreed with our 

recommendation, but raised concerns about our methodology for 

estimating expenditures. 

Enacted as part of President Johnson’s War on Poverty, the original 

Title I program was created in 1965, but the 1994 and most recently, the 

2001 reauthorization of ESEA, mandated fundamental changes to 

Title I. The 1994 ESEA reauthorization required states to develop state 

standards and assessments to ensure that students served by Title I were 

held to the same standards of achievement as other students. Some states 

had already implemented assessments prior to 1994, but they tended to be 

norm referenced—a student’s performance was compared to the 

performance of all students nationally. The 1994 ESEA reauthorization 

required assessments that were criterion referenced—students’ 

performance was to be judged against the state standards for what 

children should know and be able to do.2

 In passing the NCLBA, Congress 

built on the 1994 requirements by, among other things, increasing the 

number of grades and subject areas in which states were required to 

assess students, as shown in table 1. NCLBA requires annual testing of 

students in third through eighth grades, in mathematics and reading or 

language arts. It also requires mathematics and reading or language arts 

testing in one of the high school grades (10-12). States must also assess 

 2

A norm referenced test evaluates an individual’s performance in relation to the 

performance of a large sample of others, usually selected to represent all students 

nationally in the same grade or age range. Criterion referenced tests are assessments that 

measure the mastery of specific skills or subject content and focus on the performance of 

an individual as measured against a standard or criterion rather than the performance of 

others taking the test. 

Background 
Page 5 GAO-03-389 Title I 

students in science at least once in elementary (3-5), middle (6-9), and high 

school (10-12). NCLBA gives the states until the 2005-06 school year to 

administer the additional mathematics and reading or language arts 

assessments and until the 2007-08 school year to administer the science 

assessments (see app. II for a summary of Title I assessment 

requirements). 

Table 1: Number of Assessments and Subject Areas Required by the 1994 and 

2001 ESEA Reauthorizations 

Number of required assessments 

Subject 

1994 ESEA 

reauthorization 

2001 ESEA 

reauthorization

Reading or language arts 3 7

Mathematics 3 7

Science 0 3

Total 6 17

Source: P.L. No. 103-382 (1994) and P.L. No. 107-110 (2001). 

Unlike the 1994 ESEA reauthorization, NCLBA does not generally permit 

Education to allow states additional time to implement these assessments 

beyond the stated time frames.3

 Under the 1994 ESEA reauthorization, 

Congress allowed states to phase in the 1994 ESEA assessment 

requirements over time, giving states until the beginning of the 2000-01 

school year to fully implement them with the possibility of limited time 

extensions. In April 2002, we reported that the majority of states were not 

in compliance with the Title I accountability and assessment provisions 

required by the 1994 law.4

Every state applying for Title I funds must agree to implement the changes 

described in the 2001 act, including those related to the additional 

assessments. In addition to the regular Title I state grant, NCLBA 

authorizes additional funding to states for these assessments between 

fiscal year 2002 and 2007.5

 These funds are to be allocated each year to 

 3

The Secretary of Education may provide states 1 additional year if the state demonstrates 

that exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances, such as a natural disaster or precipitous 

and unforeseen decline in the financial resources of the state prevented full 

implementation of the academic assessments by the deadlines. 

4

U.S. General Accounting Office, Title I: Education Needs to Monitor States’ Scoring of 

Assessments, GAO-02-393 (Washington, D. C.: Apr. 1, 2002). 

5

According to Education, there are also other sources of funding in NCLBA that states may 

draw upon for assessment related expenses. 
Page 6 GAO-03-389 Title I 

states, with each state receiving $3 million, regardless of its size, plus an 

amount authorized based on its share of the nation’s school age 

population. States must use the funds to pay the cost of developing the 

additional state standards and assessments. If a state has already 

developed the required standards and assessments, it may use these funds 

to, among other things, develop challenging state academic content and 

student academic achievement standards in subject areas other than those 

required under Title I and to ensure the validity and reliability of state 

assessments. NCLBA authorized $490 million for fiscal year 2002 for state 

assessments and such funds as may be necessary through fiscal year 

2007. However, if in any year Congress appropriates less than the amounts 

shown in table 2, states may defer or suspend testing; however, states are 

still required to develop the assessments. In fiscal year 2002, states 

received $387 million for assessments. 

Table 2: Assessment Minimum Amounts under NCLBA 

Fiscal year Appropriation benchmark

2002 $370,000,000

2003 380,000,000

2004 390,000,000

2005 400,000,000

2006 400,000,000

2007 400,000,000

Total $2.34 billion

Source: P.L. No. 107-110 (2001). 

Other organizations have provided cost estimates of implementing the 

required assessments. The National Association of State Boards of 

Education (NASBE) estimated that states would spend between 

$2.7 to $7 billion to implement the required assessments. 

AccountabilityWorks estimated that states would spend about $2.1 billion.6

States can choose to use statewide assessments, local assessments, or 

both to comply with NCLBA. States can also choose to develop their own 

test questions or augment commercially available tests with questions so 

 6

NASBE and AccountabilityWorks made different assumptions regarding what costs would 

vary with the number of students tested and which would be invariant costs. For example, 

NASBE assumed that development costs would vary by the number of students taking the 

test and AccountabilityWorks did not. Additionally, AccountabilityWorks reports having 

verified its assumptions with officials from two states, while the authors of the NASBE 

study do not report having verified their assumption with state officials. 
Page 7 GAO-03-389 Title I 

that they measure what students are actually taught in school. However, 

NCLBA does not permit states to use commercially available tests that 

have not been augmented. 

NCLBA provides Education a varied role with respect to these 

assessments. Education is responsible for determining whether or not 

states’ assessments comply with Title I requirements. States submit 

evidence to Education showing that their systems for assessing students 

and holding schools accountable meet Title I requirements, and Education 

contracts with individuals who have expertise in assessments and Title I to 

review this evidence. The experts provide Education with a report on the 

status of each state regarding the degree to which a state’s system for 

assessing students meets the requirements and, therefore, warrants 

approval. Under NCLBA, Education can withhold federal funds provided 

for state administration until Education determines that the state has 

fulfilled those requirements.7

 Education’s role also includes reporting to 

Congress on states’ progress in developing and implementing academic 

assessments, and providing states, at the state’s request, with technical 

assistance in meeting the academic assessment requirements. It also 

includes disseminating information to states on best practices. 

The majority of states report using statewide assessments developed to 

measure student learning against the content they are taught in the states’ 

schools, but their assessments differ in many other ways. For example, 

some states use assessments that include multiple-choice questions, while 

others include a mixture of multiple-choice questions and questions that 

require students to write their answer by composing an essay or showing 

how they calculated a math answer. In addition, some states make actual 

test questions available to the public but differ with respect to the 

percentage of test questions they publicly release. Nearly all states provide 

accommodations for students with disabilities and some states report 

offering their assessments in languages other than English. States also 

vary in the number of new tests they will need to develop to comply with 

the NCLBA. 

 7

This amount is generally 1 percent of the amount that states receive under Title I or 

$400,000, whichever is greater. 

States Generally 

Report Administering 

Statewide 

Assessments 

Developed to Measure 

Their State Standards, 

but Differ Along Other 

Characteristics 
Page 8 GAO-03-389 Title I 

Forty-six states currently administer statewide tests to students and 

44 plan to continue using statewide tests for future tests NCLBA requires 

them to add.8

 (See fig. 1.) Only 4 states—Idaho, Kansas, Pennsylvania, and 

Nebraska—currently use a combination of state and local assessments and 

only Iowa currently uses all local assessments. 

Figure 1: The Majority of States Report They Currently Use Statewide Tests and 

Plan to Continue to Do So 

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding. 

The majority of states (31) report that all of the tests they currently use 

consist of questions customized, that is, developed specifically to assess 

student progress against their state’s standards for learning for every grade 

and subject tested. (See fig. 2.) Many of the remaining states are using 

different types of tests for different grades and subjects. For example, 

some states are using customized tests for some grades and subjects and 

 8

The District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are included in our state totals. 

The Majority of States Use 

Statewide Tests That They 

Report Are Written to 

Their State Standards 

90% (46)

2% (1) 8%

(4)

2% (1)

Current Future

85% (44)

2%(1) 10%

4% (2)

Statewide

Local

Combination

Don't know/missing

Source: GAO survey.

(5)
Page 9 GAO-03-389 Title I 

commercially available tests for other grades and subjects. Seven states 

reported using only commercially available tests in all the grades and 

subjects they tested. 

In the future, the majority of states (33) report that all of their tests will 

consist of customized questions for every subject and grade. Moreover, 

those states that currently use commercially available tests report plans to 

replace these tests with customized tests or augment commercially 

available tests with additional questions to measure what students are 

taught in schools, as required by NCLBA. 

Figure 2: The Majority of States Reported That They Currently Use and Plan to 

Develop New Tests That Are Customized to Measure Their State’s Standards 

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding. In the current period, “other” includes states 

that reported using commercially available tests for all grades and subjects tested that had not been 

augmented with additional questions to measure state standards. These states reported plans to 

augment these tests with additional questions or replace them with customized tests. 

Customized test only

Other

Don't know/missing

Source: GAO survey.

Current Future

Type of test

60% (31) 37% (19)

4%

(2)

63% (33) 19% (10)

17% (9)
Page 10 GAO-03-389 Title I 

In developing their assessments, nearly all states (50) reported providing 

specific accommodations for students with disabilities.9

 These often 

include Braille, large print, and audiotape versions of their assessments for 

visually impaired students, as well as additional time and oral 

administration. 

About a quarter of the states (12) report offering these assessments in 

languages other than English, typically Spanish. Both small and larger 

states scattered across the United States offer assessments in languages 

besides English. For example, states such as Wyoming and Delaware and 

large states such as Texas and New York offer Spanish language versions 

of their assessments. New York and Minnesota offer their assessments in 

as many as four other languages besides English.10 While a quarter of the 

states currently translate or offer assessments in languages other than 

English, additional states may provide other accommodations for students 

with limited English proficiency, such as additional time to take the test, 

use of bilingual dictionaries, or versions of the test that limit use of 

idiomatic expressions. 

Thirty-six states report they currently use a combination of multiplechoice and a limited number of open-ended questions for at least some of 

the assessments they give their students. (See fig. 3.) For example, in 

Florida, third grade students’ math skills are assessed using multiplechoice questions, while fifth grade students’ math skills are assessed using 

a combination of multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Twelve states 

reported having tests that consist entirely of multiple-choice questions. 

For example, all of Georgia’s and Virginia’s tests are multiple-choice. 

Almost half of the states reported that they had not made a decision about 

the ratio of multiple-choice to open-ended questions on future tests. Of the 

states that had made a decision, most reported plans to develop 

assessments using the same types of questions they currently use. 

 9

Two states reported that they did not provide accommodations for students with 

disabilities at the state level, however, accommodations may have been provided at the 

local school level. 

10New York offers its assessments in Spanish, Korean, Haitian Creole, and Russian and 

Minnesota offers its mathematics assessments in Spanish, Hmong, Somali, and Vietnamese. 

States Vary in Approach to 

Specific Accommodations 

States Are Using Different 

Types of Questions to 

Assess Students 
Page 11 GAO-03-389 Title I 

Figure 3: The Majority of States Reported They Use a Combination of Multiplechoice and Open-ended Questions on Their Tests, but Many States Are Uncertain 

about Question Type on Future Tests 

States choose to use a mixture of question types on their tests for varying 

reasons. For example, some officials believe that open-ended questions, 

requiring both short and long student responses, more effectively measure 

certain skills such as writing or math computation than multiple-choice 

questions. Further, they believe that different question types will render a 

more complete measure of student knowledge and skills. In addition, state 

laws sometimes require test designers to use more than one type of 

question. In Maine, for example, state law requires that all state and local 

assessments employ multiple measures of student performance. 

69% (36)

23% (12)

Current Future

Mix of multiple-choice and written response

Multiple-choice

Don't know

Missing

Source: GAO survey.

35% (18)

13%

(7)

Question type

8%

(4)

48% (25)

Don't know

4%

(2)
Page 12 GAO-03-389 Title I 

Slightly over half of the states currently release actual test questions to the 

public, but differ in the percent of questions they release. (See fig. 4.) 

Texas, Massachusetts, Maine, and Ohio release their entire tests to the 

public following the tests, allowing parents and other interested parties to 

see every question their children were asked. Other states, such as New 

Jersey and Michigan release only a portion of their tests. Moreover, even 

those states that do not release questions to the general public may release 

a portion of the questions to teachers, as does North Carolina, so that they 

can better understand areas where students are having the most difficulty, 

and improve instructions. States that release questions must typically 

replace them with new questions. 

Figure 4: States Split in Decision to Release Test Questions to the Public Following 

Tests 

Often, states periodically replenish their tests with new questions to 

improve test security. For example, states like Florida, Kentucky, 

Maryland, and South Carolina that do not release test questions, replenish 

or replace questions periodically. 

In addition to replenishing test items, many states use more than one 

version for each of their tests and do so for various reasons. For example, 

States Split as to Whether 

They Make Actual Test 

Questions Available to the 

Public Following Tests 

44% (23) 54% (28)

2% (1)

Do release

Do not release

Don't know/missing

Source: GAO survey.
Page 13 GAO-03-389 Title I 

Virginia gives a different version of its test to students who may have been 

absent. Some states use multiple test versions of their high school tests to 

allow those students who do not pass it to take it multiple times. Still other 

states, such as Massachusetts and Maine, use multiple versions to enable 

the field testing of future test questions. 

States differ in the number of additional tests they reported they need to 

meet NCLBA requirements, with some having all of the tests needed while 

others will need to develop new tests or augment commercially available 

tests with additional questions to fulfill the new requirements for a total of 

17 tests. (See table 3.) Appendix III has information on the number of tests 

each state needs to develop or augment to comply with NCLBA. 

The majority of states (32) report they will need to develop or augment 

9 or fewer tests and the rest (20) will need to develop or augment 10 or 

more tests. Eight states—Alabama, New Mexico, Montana, South Dakota, 

Idaho, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia report that 

they need to develop or augment all 17 tests. Maryland is also replacing a 

large number of its tests (15); although its assessments were certified as 

compliant with the 1994 law, the tests did not provide scores for individual 

students. Although Education waived the requirement that Maryland’s 

tests provide student level data, Maryland is in the process of replacing 

them so that it can provide such data, enabling parents to know how well 

their children are performing on state tests. 

Table 3: The Number of Tests States Reported Needing to Develop or Augment 

Varies 

Range in number of test 

states need to comply with NCLBA 

Number 

of states

None 5

1–3 4

4-6 6

7-9 17

10-12 10

13 or more 10

Source: GAO survey. 

Most states reported plans to immediately begin developing the tests, 

which according to many of the assessment directors we spoke with, 

typically take 2 to 3 years to develop. For example, most states reported 

that by 2003 they will have developed or will begin developing the reading 

and mathematics tests that must be administered by the 2005-06 school 

States Vary in the Number 

of Additional Tests They 

Reported They Need to 

Develop or Augment 
Page 14 GAO-03-389 Title I 

year. Similarly, most states reported that by 2005 they will have developed 

or will begin developing the science tests that must be administered by the 

2007-08 school year. 

To help them develop these tests, most states report using one or more 

outside contractors to help manage testing programs. Nearly all states 

report that developing, administering, scoring, and reporting will be a 

collaborative effort involving contractors and state and local education 

agencies. However, while states report that contractors and state 

education agencies will share the primary role in developing, scoring, and 

reporting new assessments, local education agencies will have the primary 

role in administering the assessments. 

We provide three estimates—$1.9, $3.9, and $5.3 billion—of total state 

spending between fiscal years 2002 and 2008 for test development, 

administration, scoring, and test reporting. These figures include 

estimated expenses for assessments states will need to add as well as 

continuing expenditures associated with assessments they currently have 

in place. The method of scoring largely explains the differences in the 

estimates. However, various other factors, such as the extent to which 

states release assessment questions to the public after testing and 

therefore need to replace them, also affect expenditures. Between states, 

however, the number of students assessed will largely explain variation in 

expenditures. Moreover, because expenditures for test development are 

small in relation to test administration, scoring, and reporting 

(nondevelopment expenditures), we estimate that state expenditures may 

be lower in the first few years when states are developing their 

assessments and higher in subsequent years as states begin to administer 

and score them and report the results. 

We estimate that states may spend $1.9, $3.9, or $5.3 billion on 

Title I assessments between fiscal years 2002 through 2008, with scoring 

expenditures largely accounting for differences in our estimates. 

Table 4 shows total state expenditures for the 17 tests required by 

Title I. In appendix IV, we also provide separate estimates for expenses 

associated with the subset of the 17 assessments that states reported they 

did not have in place at the time of our survey but are newly required by 

NCLBA. 

Estimates of Spending 

Driven Largely by 

Scoring Expenditures 

Different Estimates 

Primarily Reflect 

Differences in How 

Assessments Are Scored 
Page 15 GAO-03-389 Title I 

Table 4: Estimated Expenditures by States for Title I Assessments, 

Fiscal Years 2002-08 

Question type Estimate Questions and scoring methods used 

Multiple-choice $1.9 billion 

 Estimate assumes that all states use machinescored multiple-choice questions. 

Current question 

type $3.9 billion 

 Estimate assumes that states use the mix of 

question types reported in our survey. 

Multiple-choice 

and open-ended $5.3 billion 

 Estimate assumes that all states use both 

machine-scored multiple-choice questions and 

some hand scored open-ended questions. 

Source: GAO projections based on state assessment plans and characteristics and expenditure data gathered from 7 states. 

The $1.9 billion estimate assumes that all states will use multiple-choice 

questions on their assessments. Multiple-choice questions can be scored 

by scanning machines, making them relatively inexpensive to score. For 

instance, North Carolina, which uses multiple-choice questions on all of its 

assessments and machine scores them, spends approximately 

$0.60 to score each assessment. 

The $3.9 billion estimate assumes that states will implement assessments 

with questions like the ones they currently use or plan to use based on 

state education agency officials’ responses to our survey. However, 

25 states reported that they had not made final decisions about question 

type for future assessments. Thus, the types of questions states ultimately 

use may be different from the assessments they currently use or plan to 

use. 

Finally, the $5.3 billion estimate assumes that all states will implement 

assessments with both multiple-choice and open-ended questions. 

Answers to open-ended questions, where students write out their 

responses, are typically read and scored by people rather than by 

machines, making them much more expensive to score than answers to 

multiple-choice questions. We found that states using open-ended 

questions had much higher scoring expenditures per student than states 

using multiple-choice questions, as evidenced in the states we visited, as 

shown in figure 5.11 For example, Massachusetts, which uses many openended questions on its Title I assessments, spends about 

$7.00 to score each assessment. Scoring students’ answers to open-ended 

questions in Massachusetts involves selecting and training people to read 

 11In Texas and Colorado, we were unable to separate scoring expenditures from other 

types of expenditures. 
Page 16 GAO-03-389 Title I 

and score the answers, assigning other people to supervise the readers, 

and providing a facility where the scoring can take place. In cases where 

graduation decisions depend in part on a student’s score on the 

assessment, the state requires that two or three individuals read and score 

the student’s answer. By using more than one reader to score answers, 

officials ensure consistency between scorers and are able to resolve 

disagreements about how well the student performed. 

Figure 5: Estimated Scoring Expenditures Per Assessment Taken for Selected 

States, Fiscal Year 2002 

We estimate that, for most states, much of the expense associated with 

assessments will be related to test scoring, administration, and reporting, 

not test development, which includes such expenses as question 

development and field testing.12 (See table 5.) In Colorado, for example, 

 12This may not be true for smaller states because they may have fewer assessments to 

administer, score, and report. 

Estimated scoring expenditures per assessment taken

0

2

4

6

8

Delaware

Maine

North Carolina

Virginia

Massachusetts

Source: GAO analysis of expenditure data provided by state education agencies.

Open-ended and multiple-choice

Primarily multiple-choice
Page 17 GAO-03-389 Title I 

test administration, scoring, and reporting expenditures comprise 

89 percent of the total expenditures, while test development expenditures 

comprised only 11 percent. (See app. V for our estimates of development 

and nondevelopment expenditures by state.) 

Table 5: Estimated Total Expenditures for Test Development Are Lower Than for 

Test Administration, Scoring, and Reporting 

In millions 

Multiple-choice

Current 

question type 

Multiple-choice 

and open-ended

Development $668 $706 $724

Administration, 

scoring, and reporting 1,233 3,237 4,590

Total $1,901 $3,944 $5,313

Source: GAO projections based on state assessment plans and characteristics and expenditure data gathered from 7 states. 

While the scoring method explains a great deal of the variation in 

expenditures among states, other factors are likely to affect expenditures. 

These factors include the number of different test versions used, the 

extent to which the state releases assessment questions to the public after 

testing, fees for using copyrighted material, and factors unique to the state. 

(See fig. 6.) For example, states that use multiple test versions will have 

higher expenditures than those that have one. Massachusetts used 

24 different test versions for many of its assessments and spent 

approximately $200,000 to develop each assessment. Texas used only 

1 version for its assessments and spent approximately $60,000 per 

assessment. In addition, states that release test items to the public or 

require rapid reporting of student test scores are likely to have higher 

expenditures than states that do not because they need to replace these 

items with new ones to protect the integrity of the tests and assign 

additional staff to more rapidly score the assessments by the specified 

time frame. States that customize their assessments may have higher 

expenditures than states that augment commercially available tests. 

Moreover, factors unique to the state may affect expenditures. Maine, 

which had one of the lowest assessment development expenses of all of 

the states we visited (about $22,000 per assessment), has a contract with a 

nonprofit testing company. 

Between states, the number of students tested generally explains much of 

the variation in expenditures, particularly when question types are similar. 

States with large numbers of students tested will generally have higher 

expenditures than states with fewer students. 

Various Factors are Likely 

to Affect Expenditures for 

Title I Assessments 
Page 18 GAO-03-389 Title I 

Figure 6: Various Factors Are Likely to Affect What States Spend on Title I 

Assessments 

Using the benchmark funding levels specified in NCLBA, we estimate that 

these amounts would cover varying portions of estimated expenditures. 

(See table 6.) In general, these benchmark amounts would cover a larger 

percentage of the estimated expenditures for states that choose to use 

multiple-choice tests. To illustrate, we estimated that Alabama would 

spend $30 million if it continued to use primarily multiple-choice 

questions, but $73 million if the state used assessments with both multiplechoice and open-ended questions. The specified amount would cover 

151 percent of Alabama’s estimated expenditures if it chose to use all 

multiple-choice questions, but 62 percent if the state chose to use both 

multiple-choice and open-ended questions. 

Benchmark Amounts in 

NCLBA Will Cover Varying 

Portions of States’ 

Estimated Expenditures 

and Amount Covered Will 

Vary Primarily by Type of 

Test Questions States Use 

Use of open-ended questions

Number of students taking assessments

Customizing assessments to align with state standards

Extent of public release of questions

Number of different versions of the assessments

Faster turnaround time for scoring

Factors unique to the state

Likely affect on estimated

Factor expenditures

Source: State education agency official interviews.
Page 19 GAO-03-389 Title I 

Table 6: Total Estimated Expenditures by States for Title I Assessments, Fiscal Years 2002-08 

Estimates (in millions) 

Appropriation benchmark as percent of 

estimated expenses 

Multiplechoice 

Current 

question 

type 

Multiplechoice and 

open-ended

Appropriation 

benchmark 

(in millions)a

Multiplechoice 

Current 

question 

type

Multiple-choice 

and openended

Alabama $30 $30 $73 $46 151% 151% 62%

Alaska 17 25 28 26 154 106 93

Arizona 39 108 108 51 132 47 47

Arkansas 23 42 53 37 158 88 70

California 178 235 632 219 123 93 35

Colorado 32 87 87 46 145 53 53

Connecticut 28 68 68 41 147 59 59

Delaware 14 24 24 26 183 106 106

District of 

Columbia 13 13 17 24 184 184 144

Florida 83 211 281 102 123 48 36

Georgia 54 54 174 67 124 124 39

Hawaii 17 31 31 28 162 91 91

Idaho 18 23 30 30 167 131 98

Illinois 65 164 211 92 141 56 44

Indiana 40 113 113 56 140 49 49

Iowa 24 62 62 38 158 62 62

Kansas 23 36 51 38 164 106 73

Kentucky 28 62 71 43 155 70 61

Louisiana 31 81 81 49 158 60 60

Maine 18 33 33 29 159 86 86

Maryland 35 91 91 51 146 56 56

Massachusetts 38 109 109 55 144 50 50

Michigan 57 177 177 80 140 45 45

Minnesota 34 91 91 51 149 56 56

Mississippi 25 63 63 39 154 61 61

Missouri 36 99 99 54 150 54 54

Montana 18 28 29 27 149 97 94

Nebraska 18 34 34 32 177 93 93

Nevada 21 26 45 33 152 125 72

New 

Hampshire 17 32 32 29 168 92 92

New Jersey 43 127 127 67 153 53 53

New Mexico 21 39 41 33 155 84 81

New York 83 276 276 121 146 44 44

North Carolina 49 49 152 65 132 132 43

North Dakota 16 23 23 26 162 109 109

Ohio 55 171 171 86 158 50 50

Oklahoma 27 37 66 42 156 114 63
Page 20 GAO-03-389 Title I 

Estimates (in millions) 

Appropriation benchmark as percent of 

estimated expenses 

Multiplechoice 

Current 

question 

type 

Multiplechoice and 

open-ended

Appropriation 

benchmark 

(in millions)a

Multiplechoice 

Current 

question 

type

Multiple-choice 

and openended

Oregon 28 28 70 40 145 145 57

Pennsylvania 58 162 181 87 150 54 48

Puerto Rico 28 28 70 47 167 167 67

Rhode Island 17 28 28 27 161 98 98

South Carolina 31 82 85 43 139 53 51

South Dakota 18 18 27 26 145 145 97

Tennessee 33 33 85 52 158 158 61

Texas 126 232 441 147 116 63 33

Utah 24 44 61 37 154 84 60

Vermont 16 25 25 25 155 102 102

Virginia 43 60 129 59 136 99 46

Washington 41 118 118 55 135 47 47

West Virginia 23 23 43 31 135 135 72

Wisconsin 29 66 72 53 180 80 73

Wyoming 15 21 21 25 171 119 119

Total $1,901 $3,944 $5,313 $2,733 144% 69% 51%

Source: GAO analysis. 

a

Figures in these columns are based largely on benchmark funding levels in NCLBA. If Congress 

appropriates less than the benchmark amounts, states may defer test administration. For fiscal years 

2002 and 2003, however, we used the actual appropriation. In addition, because we were mandated 

to estimate spending for fiscal year 2008, for purposes of this analysis, we assumed a fiscal year 

2008 benchmark of $400 million, the same amount as for fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007. It should 

be noted, however, that Congress has not authorized funding past fiscal year 2007, when Title I 

would be reauthorized. Benchmarks by state were calculated based on the formula in NCLBA for 

allocating assessment funds to the states. 

Estimated expenditures are likely to be lower in the first few years when 

tests are being developed and increase in later years when greater 

numbers of tests are administered, scored, and reported. As a result, the 

benchmark funding amounts in NCLBA would cover a larger percentage of 

estimated expenditures in the first few years. Under some circumstances, 

the funding benchmarks in NCLBA exceed estimated state expenditures. 

For example, as shown in figure 7, the fiscal year 2002 allocation would 

more than cover all of the estimated expenses if all states were to use 

multiple-choice questions or continue with the types of questions they 

currently use. If all states were to choose to use a mixture of multiplechoice and open-ended questions, the most expensive option, fiscal year 

2002 funding would cover 84 percent of states’ total expenditures. We 

estimate a similar pattern for fiscal year 2003. (See app. VI for fiscal year 

2002 through 2008 estimated expenditures for each question type.) 

In fiscal year 2007 and 2008, benchmark funding would continue to cover 

all of the estimated expenditures if all states were to use all multipleTotal Expenditures Likely 

to Be Lower in the First 

Few Years, Increasing Over 

Time as States Begin to 

Administer, Score, and 

Report Additional 

Assessments 
Page 21 GAO-03-389 Title I 

choice questions, about two-thirds of estimated expenditures if all states 

continued using their current mix of questions, and a little over 50 percent 

of estimated expenditures if all states were to use a mixture of question 

types, the most expensive option. 

Figure 7: Total Expenditures Likely to Be Lower in First Few Years and Benchmark Funding in NCLBA Estimated to Cover 

Most of Expenditures in First Few Years 

Some states are exploring ways to control expenses related to 

assessments and their experiences may provide useful information to 

other states about the value of various methods for controlling 

expenditures. Recently, several states, in conjunction with testing industry 

representatives, met to discuss ways of reducing test expenditures. For 

example, the group discussed a range of possible options for reducing 

expenditures, including computer-administered tests; commercially 

available tests that can be customized to states standards by adding 

additional questions; computerized scoring of written responses, and 

Opportunities May Exist to 

Share Information on 

Efforts to Reduce Testing 

Expenditures 

Dollars in millions

0

200

400

600

800

1000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Fiscal year

Benchmark appropriations

Multiple-choice

Current question type

Multiple-choice and open-ended

2007 2008

Source: GAO analysis.
Page 22 GAO-03-389 Title I 

computer scanning of students’ written responses. Information about 

individual states experiences as they attempt to reduce expenses could 

benefit other states. However, such information is currently not 

systematically shared. 

The 1994 and 2001 ESEA reauthorizations raised student assessments to a 

new level of importance. These assessments are intended to help ensure 

that all students are meeting state standards. Congress has authorized 

funding to assist states in developing and implementing these assessments. 

We estimate that federal funding benchmarks in NCLBA will cover a larger 

percentage of expenses in the first few years when states are developing 

their assessments, with the covered percentage decreasing as states begin 

to administer, score, and report the full complement of assessments. 

Moreover, the choices states make about how they will assess students 

will influence expenditures. Some states are investigating ways to reduce 

the expenses, but currently information on states’ experiences in 

attempting to reduce expenses is not broadly shared. We believe states 

could benefit from information sharing. 

Given the large federal investment in testing and the potential for reducing 

test expenditures, we recommend that Education use its existing 

mechanisms to facilitate the sharing of information on states’ experiences 

as they attempt to reduce expenses. 

The Department of Education provided written comments on a draft of 

this report, which we have summarized below and incorporated in the 

report as appropriate. (See app. VII for agency comments.) Education 

agreed with our recommendation, stating that it looks forward to 

continuing and enhancing its efforts to facilitate information sharing that 

might help states contain expenses. However, Education raised concerns 

about our methodology, noted the availability of additional federal 

resources under ESEA that might support states’ assessment efforts, and 

pointed out that not all state assessment costs are generated by NCLBA. 

With regard to our estimates, we have confidence that our methodology is 

reasonable and provides results that fairly represent potential 

expenditures based on the best available information. Education’s 

comments focus on the uncertainties that are inherent in estimation of any 

kind—the necessity of assumptions, the possibility of events or trends not 

readily predicted, and other potential sources of error that are 

acknowledged in the report—without proposing an alternative 

methodology. Because of the uncertainty, we produced three estimates 

Conclusions 

Recommendation 

Agency Comments 
Page 23 GAO-03-389 Title I 

instead of one. In developing our approach, we solicited comments from 

experts in the area and incorporated their suggestions as appropriate. We 

also discussed our estimation procedures with Education staff, who raised 

no significant concerns. Second, Education cites various other sources of 

funds that states might use to finance assessments. While other sources 

may be available, we focused primarily on the amounts specifically 

authorized for assessments in order to facilitate their comparison to 

estimated expenses and because they are the minimum amounts that 

Congress must appropriate to ensure that states continue to develop as 

well as implement the required assessments. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Education, 

relevant congressional committees, and other interested parties. Please 

contact me on (202) 512-7215 or Betty Ward-Zukerman on (202) 512-2732 if 

you or your staff have any questions about this report. In addition, the 

report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are 

listed in appendix VIII. 

Marnie S. Shaul, Director 

Education, Workforce 

 and Income Security Issues 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 24 GAO-03-389 Title I 

The objectives of this study were to provide information on the basic 

characteristics of Title I assessments, and to estimate what states would 

likely spend on Title I assessments between fiscal year 2002 and 2008, and 

identify factors that explain variation in estimated expenditures. To 

address the first objective, we collected information from a survey sent to 

the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, and reviewed 

documentation from state education agencies and from published studies 

detailing the characteristics of states’ assessments. To address the second 

objective, we collected detailed assessment expenditure information from 

7 states, interviewed officials at state education agencies, discussed cost 

factors with assessment contractors, and estimated assessment 

expenditures under three different scenarios. The methods we used to 

address the objectives were reviewed by several external reviewers, and 

we incorporated their comments as appropriate. This appendix discusses 

the scope of the study, the survey, and the methods we used to estimate 

assessment expenditures. 

We surveyed all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, all of 

which responded to our survey. We asked them to provide information 

about their Title I assessments, including the characteristics of current and 

planned assessments, the number and types of new tests they needed to 

develop to satisfy No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) requirements, when 

they planned to begin developing the new assessments, the types of 

questions on their assessments, and their use of contractors. We also 

reviewed documentation from several states about their assessment 

programs and published studies detailing the characteristics of states’ 

assessments. 

This study estimates likely expenditures on Title I assessments by states 

between fiscal year 2002 and 2008, and identifies factors that may explain 

variation in the estimates. It does not estimate expenditures for alternate 

assessments for students with disabilitiess for English language 

proficiency testing, or expenditures incurred by school districts.1

 Instead, 

we estimated expenses states are expected to incur based on expenditure 

data obtained for this purpose from 7 states combined with data on these 

and other states’ assessment plans and characteristics obtained through a 

 1

The study also does not estimate the opportunity costs of assessments. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Providing Information on 

the Basic Characteristics 

of Title I Assessments 

Estimating Assessment 

Expenditures and 

Explaining Variation in the 

Estimates 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 25 GAO-03-389 Title I 

survey.2 In the 7 states, we requested information and documentation on 

expenditures in a standard set of areas, met with state officials to discuss 

the information and asked that they review our subsequent analysis of 

information regarding their state. The expenditure data that we received 

from the 7 states were not audited. Moreover, actual expenditures may 

vary from projected amounts, particularly when events or circumstances 

are different from those assumed, such as changes in the competitiveness 

of the market for student assessment or changes in assessment 

technology. 

We selected 7 states that had assessments in place in many of the grades 

and subjects required by the NCLBA from the 17 states with assessment 

systems that had been certified by Education as in compliance with 

requirements of the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 when we 

began our work. We included states with varying student enrollments, 

including 2 states with relatively small numbers of students. The states we 

selected were Colorado, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, 

Texas and Virginia. (See table 7 for information about the selected states.) 

Table 7: States Selected for Study 

 Number of assessments 

State 

Date approved 

by Education 

Number of 

students

Reading 

(out of 7)

Math 

(out of 7)

Science 

(out of 3) Total

Colorado July 2001 724,508 7 5 1 13

Delaware December 2000 114,676 7 7 3 17

Maine February 2002 207,037 3 3 3 9

Massachusetts January 2001 975,150 5 4 3 12

North Carolina June 2001 1,293,638 7 7 0 14

Texas March 2001 4,059,619 7 7 2 16

Virginia January 2001 1,144,915 4 4 3 11

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, and state education agencies. 

We collected detailed assessment expenditure information from officials 

in the 7 states. We obtained actual expenditures on contracts and state 

assessment office budget expenditures for fiscal year 2002 for all 7 states 

 2

Because our expenditure data were limited to 7 states, our estimates may be biased. For 

example, if the 7 states we selected had higher average development expenditures per 

ongoing assessment than the average state, then our estimate of development expenditures 

would be biased upwards. 

Selection of 7 States 

Collection of Expenditure 

Information from 7 States 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 26 GAO-03-389 Title I 

and for previous years in 4 states.3 In site visits to the 7 states, we 

interviewed state education agency officials who explained various 

elements of their contracts with assessment publishing firms and the 

budget for the state’s assessment office. To the extent possible, we 

collected expenditure data, distinguishing expenditures for assessment 

development from expenditures for assessment administration, scoring, 

and reporting, because expenditures vary differently between these two 

expenditure categories. Assessment development expenditures vary with 

the number of assessments while administration, scoring, and reporting 

expenditures vary with the number of students taking the assessments. 

(See table 8 for examples of expenditures.) 

Table 8: Examples of Assessment Expenditures 

Type of expenditure Example of expenditure 

Development Question writing 

Question review (e.g., for bias) 

Administration Printing and delivering assessment 

booklets 

Scoring Scanning completed booklets into scoring 

machines 

Reporting Producing individual score reports 

Source: State education agencies. 

Using annual assessment expenditures for all 7 states, the number of 

assessments developed and implemented, and the number of students who 

took the assessments, we calculated average expenditures for ongoing 

development (assessments past their second year of development) and 

average expenditures for administration, scoring, and reporting for each 

state. (See table 9.) 

 3

We were unable to obtain information on personnel expenditures from 5 of the 7 states, 

and so we did not include personnel expenditures in our analysis. In the 2 states in which 

we obtained personnel expenditures, such expenditures were a relatively small part of the 

assessment budget. 

Calculation of Averages for 

Development and for 

Administration, Scoring, 

and Reporting 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 27 GAO-03-389 Title I 

Table 9: Average Annual Expenditures for the 7 States (adjusted to 2003 dollars) 

State 

Average development 

expenditures (per ongoing 

assessment)

Average expenditures for 

administration, scoring, and 

reporting (per assessment taken)

Both multiple-choice 

and open-ended 

questions 

Multiplechoice 

questions

Colorado $72,889 $10.35 9 

Delaware $66,592 $8.78 9 

Maine $22,295 $9.96 9 

Massachusetts $190,870 $12.45 9 

North Carolina $104,181 $1.85 9

Texas $61,453 $4.72 9

Virginia $78,489 $1.80 9

Source: GAO analysis of state education agency information. 

Note: We were able to obtain data for more than 1 year for Colorado, Delaware, Maine, 

Massachusetts, and Texas. For these states, we adjusted their average expenditures to 2003 dollars 

and then averaged these adjusted expenditures across the years that data were collected. North 

Carolina did not distinguish Title I assessments from other assessments it offers. 

We provide three estimates of what all states are likely to spend on all of 

the required 17 assessments using the average development expenditure 

and average expenditures for administration, scoring, and reporting by 

question type (multiple-choice or multiple-choice with some open-ended 

questions). One estimate assumes that all states use only multiple-choice 

questions, the second assumes that states will use the types of questions 

state officials reported they use or planned to use, and the third assumes 

that all states will use both multiple-choice and a limited number of long 

and short open-ended questions. All estimates reflect states’ timing of their 

assessments (for example, that science assessments are generally planned 

to be developed and administered later than assessments for reading and 

mathematics). 

To estimate what states would spend under the assumption that they use 

only multiple-choice questions, we took the mean of the average annual 

expenditures per assessment for North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia, 

states that use multiple-choice assessments. To compute an estimate that 

reflected the types of questions states used or planned to use, we used the 

appropriate averages. To illustrate, California reported 15 multiple-choice 

tests and 2 tests that include a combination of multiple-choice and openended questions. For the 15 multiple-choice tests, we used the mean from 

the multiple-choice states (North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia). For the 

2 multiple-choice and open-ended tests, we used the mean from the states 

that had both question types (Colorado, Delaware, Maine, and 

Massachusetts). To estimate what states would spend, assuming that all 

states use both multiple-choice and open-ended questions, we used the 

Estimating States’ Likely 

Expenditures for 17 Title I 

Assessments 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 28 GAO-03-389 Title I 

mean of the average annual expenditures for Colorado, Delaware, Maine, 

and Massachusetts, states that use both types of questions. 

To estimate development expenditures, we obtained information from 

each state regarding the number of assessments it needed to develop, the 

year in which it planned to begin development of each new assessment, 

and the number of assessments it already had. For each assessment the 

state indicated it needed to develop, we estimated initial development 

expenditures beginning in the year the state said it would begin 

development and also for the following year because interviews with 

officials revealed that developing an entirely new assessment takes 

approximately 2 to 3 years. For the 7 states that provided data, we were 

typically not able to separate expenditures for new test development from 

expenditures for ongoing test development. Where such data were 

available, we determined that development expenses for new assessments 

were approximately three times the expense of development expenses for 

ongoing assessments, and we used that approximation in our estimates. 

For each state each year, we multiplied the number of tests in initial 

development by three times the average ongoing development expenditure 

to reflect that initial development of assessments is more expensive than 

ongoing development.4

 We multiplied the number of ongoing tests by the 

average ongoing development expenditure. The sum of these two products 

provides a development expenditure for each state in each year and 

provides a total development estimate. We calculated three estimates as 

follows: 

• using the expenditure information from states that use multiple-choice 

questions, we produced a lower estimate; 

• using the information from the state survey on the types of tests they 

planned to develop (some indicated both open-ended/multiple-choice tests 

and some multiple-choice), we produced a middle estimate;5

 and 

• using the expenditure information from the states that use open-ended and 

multiple-choice questions, we produced the higher estimate. 

 4

We found estimates were not sensitive to changes in assumptions regarding development 

costs, partly because they proved to be a generally small portion of overall expenses. 

5

For states that reported that they did not know the kinds of question they would use on 

future tests, we assumed that future test would be the same as they currently use. Where 

data were missing, we assumed that states would use assessments with both multiplechoice and open-ended questions, potentially biasing our estimates upward. 

Estimating Development 

Expenditures 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 29 GAO-03-389 Title I 

To produce an estimate for administration, scoring, and reporting, we used 

three variables: the average number of students in a grade; the number of 

administered assessments; and the average administration, scoring, and 

reporting expenditure per assessment taken. We calculated the average 

number of students in a grade in each year using data from the National 

Center for Education Statistics’ Common Core of Data for 2000-01 and 

their Projection of Education Statistics to 2011. We obtained data on the 

number of administered assessments from our state education agency 

survey. Data on average expenditures come from the states in which we 

collected detailed expenditure information. 

For each state in each year, we multiplied the average number of students 

in a grade by the number of administered assessments and by the 

appropriate average assessment expenditure. Summing over states and 

years provided a total estimate for administration, scoring, and reporting. 

As above, we performed these calculations, using the expenditure 

information from multiple-choice states to produce the lower estimate, 

using the information from the state survey and expenditure information 

from both combination and multiple-choice states to produce a middle 

estimate, and using the expenditure information from the combination 

states to produce the higher estimate. We also estimated what states are 

likely to spend on the assessments that states did not have in place at the 

time of our survey, but are required by NCLBA, using the same basic 

methodology. Table 10 provides an overview of our approach to estimating 

states’ likely expenditures on Title I assessments. 

Estimating Administration, 

Scoring, and Reporting 

Expenditures 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 30 GAO-03-389 Title I 

Table 10: Estimated Expenditures to Implement Title I Assessments in a Given Year 

A Total estimated development 

expenditure for ongoing 

assessments 

= Number of ongoing 

assessments 

× Average development expenditure for each ongoing 

assessment 

B Total estimated development 

expenditure for new assessments 

= Number of new 

assessments 

× Three times the average development expenditure for 

each ongoing assessment 

C Total estimated expenditures for 

administration, scoring, and 

reporting (ongoing and new 

assessments) 

= Average number of 

students in each grade 

× Average administration, scoring, and reporting 

expenditure for each assessment taken, times the 

number of assessments administered, for each 

ongoing and new assessment 

A + B + C = States’ estimated expenditures to implement Title I assessments 

Source: GAO analysis. 

We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards between April 2002 and March 2003. 
Appendix II: Accountability and Assessment 

Requirements under the 1994 and 2001 

Reauthorizations of Title I 

Page 31 GAO-03-389 Title I 

Requirements for 1994 Requirements for 2001 

Developing standards for content and performance 

Develop challenging standards for what students should know in 

mathematics and reading or language arts. In addition, for each of 

these standards, states should develop performance standards 

representing three levels: partially proficient, proficient, and 

advanced. The standards must be the same for all children. If the 

state does not have standards for all children, it must develop 

standards for Title I children that incorporate the same skills, 

knowledge, and performance expected of other children. 

In addition, develop standards for science content by 2005-06. 

The same standards must be used for all children. 

Implementing and administering assessments 

Develop and implement assessments aligned with the content and 

performance standards in at least mathematics and reading or 

language arts. 

Add assessments aligned with the content and performance 

standards in science by the 2007-08 school year. These 

science assessments must be administered at some time in 

each of the following grade ranges: grades 3 through 5, 6 

through 9, and 10 through 12. 

Use the same assessment system to measure Title I students as the 

state uses to measure the performance of all other students. In the 

absence of a state system, a system that meets Title I requirements 

must be developed for use in all Title I schools. 

Use the same assessment system to measure Title I students 

as the state uses to measure the performance of all other 

students. If the state provides evidence to the Secretary that it 

lacks authority to adopt a statewide system, it may meet the 

Title I requirement by adopting an assessment system on a 

statewide basis and limiting its applicability to Title I students or 

by ensuring that the Title I local educational agency (LEA) 

adopts standards and aligned assessments. 

Include in the assessment system multiple measures of student 

performance, including measures that assess higher order thinking 

skills and understanding. 

Unchanged 

Administer assessments for mathematics and reading in each of the 

following grade spans: grades 3 through 5, 6 through 9, and 10 

through 12. 

Administer reading and mathematics tests annually in grades 

3 through 8, starting in the 2005-06 school year (in addition to 

the assessments previously required sometime within grades 

10 through 12). 

States do not have to administer mathematics and reading or 

language arts tests annually in grades 3 through 8 if Congress 

does not provide specified amounts of funds to do so, but 

states have to continue to work on the development of the 

standards and assessments for those grades. 

Have students in grades 4 and 8 take the National Assessment 

of Educational Progress examinations in reading and 

mathematics every other year beginning in 2002-03, as long as 

the federal government pays for it. 

Assess students with either or both criterion referenced assessments 

and assessments that yield national norms. However, if the state 

uses only assessments referenced against national norms at a 

particular grade, those assessments must be augmented with 

additional items as necessary to accurately measure the depth and 

breath of the state’s academic contents standards. 

Unchanged 

Assess students with statewide, local, or a combination of state and 

local assessments. However, states that use all local or a 

combination of state and local assessments, must ensure, among 

other things, such assessments are aligned with the state’s 

academic content standards, are equivalent to one another, and 

Unchanged 

Appendix II: Accountability and Assessment 

Requirements under the 1994 and 2001 

Reauthorizations of Title I 
Appendix II: Accountability and Assessment 

Requirements under the 1994 and 2001 

Reauthorizations of Title I 

Page 32 GAO-03-389 Title I 

Requirements for 1994 Requirements for 2001 

enable aggregation to determine whether the state has made 

adequate yearly progress 

Implement controls to ensure the quality of the data collected from 

the assessments. 

Unchanged 

Including students with limited English proficiency and with 

disabilities in assessments

Assess students with disabilities and limited English proficiency 

according to standards for all other students. 

Provide reasonable adaptations and accommodations for students 

with disabilities or limited English proficiency to include testing in the 

language and form most likely to yield accurate and reliable 

information on what they know and can do. 

By 2002-03 annually assess the language proficiency of 

students with limited English proficiency. Students who have 

attended a U.S. school for 3 consecutive years must be tested 

in English unless an individual assessment by the district 

shows testing in a native language will be more reliable. 

Reporting data 

Report assessment results according to the following: by state, local 

educational agency (LEA), school, gender, major racial and ethnic 

groups, English proficiency, migrant status, disability, and economic 

disadvantage. 

Unchanged. 

LEAs must produce for each Title I school a performance profile with 

disaggregated results and must publicize and disseminate these to 

teachers, parents, students, and the community. LEAs must also 

provide individual student reports, including test scores and other 

information on the attainment of student performance standards. 

Provide annual information on the test performance of 

individual students and other indicators included in the state 

accountability system by 2002-03. Make this annual 

information available to parents and the public and include data 

on teacher qualifications. Compare high- and low-poverty 

schools with respect to the percentage of classes taught by 

teachers who are “highly qualified,” as defined in the law, and 

conduct similar analyses for subgroups listed in previous law. 

Measuring improvement

Use performance standards to establish a benchmark for 

improvement referred to as “adequate yearly progress.” All LEAs and 

schools must meet the state’s adequate yearly progress standard, 

for example, having 90 percent of their students performing at the 

proficient level in mathematics. LEAs and schools must show 

continuous progress toward meeting the adequate yearly progress 

standard. The state defines the level of progress a school or LEA 

must show. Schools that do not make the required advancement 

toward the adequate yearly progress standard can face 

consequences, such as the replacement of the existing staff. 

In addition to showing gains in the academic achievement of 

the overall school population, schools and districts must show 

that the following subcategories of students have made gains 

in their academic achievement: pupils who are economically 

disadvantaged, have limited English proficiency, are disabled, 

or belong to a major racial or ethnic group. To demonstrate 

gains among these subcategories of students, school districts 

measure their progress against the state’s definition of 

adequate yearly progress. 

States have 12 years for all students to perform at the 

proficient level. 

Consequences for not meeting the adequate yearly progress standard

LEAs are required to identify for improvement any schools that fail to 

make adequate yearly progress for 2 consecutive years and provide 

technical assistance to help failing schools develop and implement 

required improvement plans. After a school has failed to meet the 

adequate yearly progress standard for 3 consecutive years, LEAs 

must take corrective action to improve the school. 

New requirements are more specific as to what actions an LEA 

must take to improve failing schools. Actions are defined for 

each year the school continues to fail leading up to the 5th year 

of failure when a school may be restructured by changing to a 

charter school, replacing school staff, or state takeover of the 

school administration. The new law also provides that LEAs 

offer options to children in failing schools. Depending on the 

number of years a school has been designated for 

improvement, these options may include going to another 

public school with transportation paid by the LEA or using Title 

I funds to pay for supplemental help. 

Source: P. L. No. 103-382 (1994) and Pub.L No. 107-110 (2001). 
Appendix III: Number of Tests States 

Reported They Need to Develop or Augment 

to Comply with NCLBA (as of March 2003) 

Page 33 GAO-03-389 Title I 

State Number of tests needed

Alabama 17

Alaska 9

Arizona 9

Arkansas 9

California 5

Colorado 4

Connecticut 8

Delaware 0

District of Columbia 17

Florida 0

Georgia 0

Hawaii 9

Idaho 17

Illinois 6

Indiana 9

Iowa 0

Kansas 11

Kentucky 8

Louisiana 8

Maine 8

Maryland 15

Massachusetts 6

Michigan 8

Minnesota 11

Mississippi 3

Missouri 8

Montana 17

Nebraska 11

Nevada 11

New Hampshire 9

New Jersey 10

New Mexico 17

New York 8

North Carolina 3

North Dakota 11

Ohio 8

Oklahoma 8

Oregon 6

Pennsylvania 11

Puerto Rico 10

Rhode Island 11

South Carolina 3

Appendix III: Number of Tests States 

Reported They Need to Develop or Augment 

to Comply with NCLBA (as of March 2003) 
Appendix III: Number of Tests States 

Reported They Need to Develop or Augment 

to Comply with NCLBA (as of March 2003) 

Page 34 GAO-03-389 Title I 

State Number of tests needed

South Dakota 17 

Tennessee 15 

Texas 1 

Utah 0 

Vermont 9 

Virginia 6 

Washington 8 

West Virginia 17 

Wisconsin 17 

Wyoming 11 

Source: GAO survey. 
Appendix IV: Estimates of Assessment 

Expenditures NCLBA Required, but Not in 

Place at the Time of Our Survey, FY 2002-08 

Page 35 GAO-03-389 Title I 

Table 11 provides estimates of assessment expenditures states may incur 

for grades and subjects they reported they would need to add to meet the 

additional assessment requirements under NCLBA. These estimates do not 

include any expenditures for continuing development or administration of 

assessments in grades and subjects already included in states’ reported 

assessment program, unless states indicated plans to replace its existing 

assessments. Estimates reflect total expenditures between fiscal year 

2002 and 2008, and are based on the assumptions we made regarding 

question types. 

Table 11: Estimates of Expenditures for the Assessments Required by NCLBA That 

Were Not in Place at the Time of Our Survey, Fiscal Years 2002-08 

Dollars in billions 

Question type Estimate Questions and scoring methods used 

Multiple-choice $0.8

 Estimate assumes that all states use 

machine-scored multiple-choice questions. 

Current 

question type $1.6 

 Estimate assumes that states use the mix of 

question types they reported in our survey. 

Multiple-choice 

and open-ended

$2.0

 Estimate assumes that all states use both 

machine scored multiple-choice questions 

and some hand scored open-ended 

questions. 

Source: GAO. 

Note: Projections based on state assessment plans and characteristics and expenditure data 

gathered from 7 states. 

Appendix IV: Estimates of Assessment 

Expenditures NCLBA Required, but Not in 

Place at the Time of Our Survey, FY 2002-08 
Appendix V: State Development and 

Nondevelopment Estimates 

Page 36 GAO-03-389 Title I 

Table 12 provides test development and nondevelopment expenditures by 

state between fiscal year 2002-08. Test development estimates reflect 

expenditures associated with both new and existing tests. 

Nondevelopment expenditures reflect expenditures associated with 

administration, scoring, and reporting of results for both new and existing 

assessments. 

Table 12: Estimates by State, Development, and Nondevelopment Expenditures 

Dollars in millions 

Multiple-choice and open-ended Current question type Multiple-choice 

Development 

Nondevelopment Development

Nondevelopment Development

Nondevelopment

Alabama $16 $57 $15 $15 $15 $15

Alaska 15 14 15 10 13 4

Arizona 15 93 15 93 14 25

Arkansas 14 39 14 28 13 10

California 13 619 12 223 12 166

Colorado 13 74 13 74 12 20

Connecticut 14 54 14 54 13 15

Delaware 12 13 12 13 11 3

District of 

Columbia 13 4 12 1 12 1

Florida 12 269 12 200 11 72

Georgia 12 162 11 44 11 44

Hawaii 14 17 14 17 13 5

Idaho 15 16 14 9 14 4

Illinois 13 198 13 151 12 53

Indiana 14 99 14 99 13 27

Iowa 12 50 12 50 11 14

Kansas 14 37 13 23 13 10

Kentucky 14 58 14 48 13 16

Louisiana 14 67 14 67 13 18

Maine 14 19 14 19 13 5

Maryland 16 75 16 75 15 20

Massachusetts 13 96 13 96 12 26

Michigan 14 163 14 163 13 44

Minnesota 15 76 15 76 14 20

Mississippi 13 51 13 51 12 14

Missouri 14 85 14 85 13 23

Montana 16 13 16 12 15 3

Nebraska 13 21 13 21 12 6

Nevada 14 31 13 13 13 8

New Hampshire 13 18 13 18 12 5

New Jersey 14 113 14 113 13 30

Appendix V: State Development and 

Nondevelopment Estimates 
Appendix V: State Development and 

Nondevelopment Estimates 

Page 37 GAO-03-389 Title I 

Dollars in millions 

Multiple-choice and open-ended Current question type Multiple-choice 

Development 

Nondevelopment Development

Nondevelopment Development

Nondevelopment

New Mexico 16 25 16 24 15 7

New York 14 262 14 262 13 70

North Carolina 13 139 12 37 12 37

North Dakota 14 9 14 9 13 2

Ohio 13 158 13 158 12 42

Oklahoma 14 53 13 24 13 14

Oregon 14 57 13 15 13 15

Pennsylvania 15 166 15 147 14 45

Puerto Rico 14 56 13 15 13 15

Rhode Island 14 13 14 13 13 4

South Carolina 13 73 13 70 12 19

South Dakota 17 10 15 3 15 3

Tennessee 15 70 14 19 14 19

Texas 12 429 11 221 11 115

Utah 12 50 12 33 11 13

Vermont 15 10 15 10 14 3

Virginia 13 116 12 48 12 31

Washington 14 104 14 104 13 28

West Virginia 17 26 16 7 16 7

Wisconsin 15 57 15 51 14 15

Wyoming 14 7 14 7 13 2

Total $724 $4,590 $706 $3,237 $668 $1,233

Source: GAO estimates based on state assessment plans and characteristics and expenditure data gathered from 7 states. 
Appendix VI: Fiscal Years 2002-08 Estimated 

Expenditures for Each Question Type 

Page 38 GAO-03-389 Title I 

Table 13 provides estimates for each question type and the benchmark 

appropriations by fiscal years from 2002 through 2008. Each estimate 

reflects assumptions about the type of questions on the assessments. For 

example, the multiple-choice estimate assumes that all states will use 

assessments with only multiple-choice questions. These estimates also 

assume that states implement the assessment plans reported to us. The 

benchmark appropriation is based on actual appropriations in 2002 and 

2003 and on the benchmark funding level in NCLBA for 2004-07. We 

assumed a benchmark of $400 million in 2008, the same as in 2005, 2006, 

and 2007. 

Table 13: Estimated Expenditures for Each Question Type, Fiscal Years 2002-08 

Fiscal year (in millions) 

Question 

type 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total

Multiplechoice $165 237 288 291 293 308 318 $1,901

Current 

question type $324 442 572 615 633 665 692 $3,944

Multiplechoice and 

open-ended $445 586 761 824 855 903 941 $5,313

Benchmark 

appropriation $366 376 390 400 400 400 400 $2,733

Source: GAO estimates based on state assessment plans and characteristics and expenditure data gathered from 7 states. 

Note: Fiscal years 2002 through 2008 sums may not equal the total because of rounding. 

Appendix VI: Fiscal Years 2002-08 Estimated 

Expenditures for Each Question Type 
Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Education 

Page 39 GAO-03-389 Title I 

Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Education 
Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Education 

Page 40 GAO-03-389 Title I 
Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Education 

Page 41 GAO-03-389 Title I 
Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 42 GAO-03-389 Title I 

Sherri Doughty (202) 512-7273 

Jason Palmer (202) 512-3825 

In addition to those named above, Lindsay Bach, Cindy Decker, and 

Patrick DiBattista made important contributions to this report. 

Theresa Mechem provided assistance with graphics. 

Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(130126) 
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily 

E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs